The Bridge of Belief and the Death of God

-When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God he denounced the Christian myth as no longer being a legitimate path of belief for himself, and those similar to him. He is not saying, I do not think, that Christianity is no longer useful for all people, or for anyone. Thus, he is very aware that myths, as tools used to give meaning to our lives, work for certain individuals and fail to work for other individuals. The bridge that divides these groups I’d like to call the bridge of belief, and the individuals in each respective belief group represent a different type of human being, with a different system of meaning. There are those who need and adhere to Christianity, those that need and adhere to Islam, those that need and adhere to atheism, etc. Now, I am not here equivocating religion and atheism. They are not both beliefs in the simple sense, but I believe that people are drawn to either based on who they are in a deeper, biological and psychological sense.
-A Christian, for example, does not need to care about the nature of the material world. They definitely care about the nature of their “soul,” and where they will spend the rest of their proposed eternal life. If I believed such a ridiculous notion, it would certainly be the center of my concern as well. But the problem, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that this pits human against human, like it always has been for us. Human beings are conscious, which means that we are aware of the possibility of our own extermination, or the extermination of essential aspects of our identity that we want to see passed down to future generations. If Human A wants X to be passed down, Human B wants Y passed down, and both of their traits are incompatible with each other, then each fears the annihilation of their way of being human. Nietzsche senses that he, along with figures like Schopenhauer, and at one point, seemingly Wagner, represent the first stage in an evolutionary transition in human history; being the “first” in a long time to be born without the need to believe in a Christian God, and more importantly, born without the ability to truly believe in God. He predicts that faith, at least in the Christian God, like it is for him, will soon become an impossibility for the human species, a shift that will fundamentally change what it means to be human.
-We are still no where near that point, but we have reached a point where a significant proportion of the human populous can no longer believe in Gods and consider themselves Atheist. I think it is important for individuals on either side of the bridge to consider the possibility that their respective belief systems are symptoms of rigid, or possibly unchangeable, aspects of their inner psychology and character. To demand a Christian become an atheist, or an atheist become a Christian, could be analogous to demanding someone be who they are not and cannot be.
-Whether the human psyche is this rigid, I do not know. It is certainly the case that some people find it plausible to believe in God and also plausible to be an atheist, or who have been both over the course of their life. So, the appeal to the rigidity of character seen in Schopenhauer and inherited by Nietzsche in the form of his typology and fatalism might be applied to aspects of one’s character that could shift, if certain external conditions or stimuli are met. An individual might have a serious and easily triggered disposition to depression, suffer from depression most of one’s life, but still find the right medicine at the age of 70 that, when implemented into a daily regiment, fundamentally changes the nature of this individual’s character by invoking previously hidden psychological possibilities.
-Sand has always had the potential to become glass, but only once heat is added does the nature of the substance change…a caution against narrow minded fatalism.
-Shit can fertilize soil, but isn’t going to become gold anytime soon….a caution against idealistic alchemists.